We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Microsoft System Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has good integration."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ease of configuration and the easy discovery of the environment."
"The detail in the alarms is great."
"The installation process is easy."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft System Center is its GUI (graphical user interface)."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The availability performance matrix and the reporting capabilities are the solution's most valuable features."
"We like Microsoft System Center's Operations Manager. That is primarily why we use it."
"The solution is easily available. That's its most valuable aspect."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"We have some bugs but it's stable. It doesn't break every day. It works. Like other applications, it has a lot of bugs but they're manageable."
"Most of the documentation is online, however, there are some gaps there. The product documentation still refers back to the 2012 Server. We're pretty much in 2022. There's a ten-year gap there."
"Could be more user friendly."
"System Center hasn't updated to keep up with the industry. It needs improvements in the user interface, ease of use, and overall product functionality, particularly the cloud-monitoring features. It needs more capabilities to monitor AWS and Azure infrastructure."
"In Microsoft System Center, it is difficult to follow the steps to create dataflows at times."
"The solution's dashboard needs improvement."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The platform performance and responsiveness need improvement. It still demands high computing resources."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Microsoft System Center is ranked 15th in Application Infrastructure with 17 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft System Center is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft System Center writes "Good review of configurations, effective antivirus administration, and has weekly reports". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft System Center is most compared with Oracle SOA Suite. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Microsoft System Center report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
